Timix.AI

update_subtask

Update an existing subtask in your organization. Only the fields you provide are changed (PATCH semantics). You can rename the subtask, update its description, change its status, billing type, and set an hour limit. Discover ids with find_billing_work - never ask the user for an id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New subtask name.
`status`	No	Subtask status. One of: Active, Inactive, Completed.
`hour_limit`	No	Hour limit for this subtask (0 = unlimited). Validated against the parent task's limit for the subtask's billing type.
`subtask_id`	Yes	Id of the subtask to update (required). Must be a subtask in your organization.
`description`	No	Subtask description.
`billing_type`	No	Billing type for this subtask. One of: TM, Fix, OVH. Must be allowed by the parent task.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional caller-supplied key; retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses PATCH semantics (only provided fields change) and mentions idempotency key behavior via the schema, but lacks details on validation rules, permissions, side effects, or error cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences covering the essential purpose, PATCH behavior, updatable fields, and an important usage tip. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns after update, error scenarios, and required permissions. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool without annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions. The description adds value by emphasizing PATCH semantics and directing the agent to use find_billing_work for the subtask_id, which aids selection beyond schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it's an update operation with PATCH semantics, lists the specific fields that can be changed (name, description, status, billing type, hour limit), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_subtask and delete_subtask.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises to discover subtask IDs using find_billing_work and never ask the user, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions but the sibling set implies when not to use (e.g., delete or move operations).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Timix.AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.

Resources

Need Help?